1. It's simple and free.
2. Your username cannot be used by guests.
3. You can personalise your profile picture.
4. Comments remain editable for 5 mins after submitting.
5. There are no captchas when you submit a comment.
6. You are informed of replies to your comments.
7. Your comments are archived for future reference.

Because everywhere we look, we see "dodgy adjustments" made to sparse data in support of a failing hypothesis (note this happened this week with a big adjustment to how they calculate the sst's. Lots of filling in of those big white spots with lovely warm invented data) .Its not difficult to see that something smells, unless you are of course a liberal

Because everywhere we look, we see "dodgy adjustments" made to sparse data in support of a failing hypothesis (note this happened this week with a big adjustment to how they calculate the sst's. Lots of filling in of those big white spots with lovely warm invented data) .Its not difficult to see that something smells, unless you are of course a liberal

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
JeoTaicoon(1091 days ago)

The trouble is not that anything "dodgy" is going on, but that data is being handled in a proper mathematical way, which the general public doesn't understand.

Well you jumped in with a complete change of tack, however to answer your statement, seeing as they are having a good deal of trouble distinguishing a human contribution from the natural variation, so you could say there is a great amount of contradictory evidence.

Well you jumped in with a complete change of tack, however to answer your statement, seeing as they are having a good deal of trouble distinguishing a human contribution from the natural variation, so you could say there is a great amount of contradictory evidence.

OK, so you are saying that all scientists in the world are having a good deal of trouble distinguishing a human contribution from the natural variation.

Did I get that right?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1090 days ago)

Yep walter, I know there is a tendancy amongst agw cultists to look at every weather event and scweam "we are causing that", but people in the real world who have an appreciation of geology have noted such events happen quite frequently and have done so for millions of years, In short you cant distinguish the cause.

Yep walter, I know there is a tendancy amongst agw cultists to look at every weather event and scweam "we are causing that", but people in the real world who have an appreciation of geology have noted such events happen quite frequently and have done so for millions of years, In short you cant distinguish the cause.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(1089 days ago)

OK, so which geological (or other natural) event/s in the last 150 years is confusing scientists?

OK, so which geological (or other natural) event/s in the last 150 years is confusing scientists?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1089 days ago)

So you've not heard of meterological history. All those recorded violent storms, sunk shipwrecks etc, previous to agw period warming periods statistically indistinguishable from the 79's to 90's warmng etc etc . The problem is walter, that in order to test an hypothesis, you have to have a null hypothesis to test against, and the null hypothesis looks very much the same as the present, not withstanding the simple fact that they dont really know how much of the processes in the climate works anyway, so formulation of null hypothesis is just a touch difficult.

So you've not heard of meterological history. All those recorded violent storms, sunk shipwrecks etc, previous to agw period warming periods statistically indistinguishable from the 79's to 90's warmng etc etc . The problem is walter, that in order to test an hypothesis, you have to have a null hypothesis to test against, and the null hypothesis looks very much the same as the present, not withstanding the simple fact that they dont really know how much of the processes in the climate works anyway, so formulation of null hypothesis is just a touch difficult.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(1089 days ago)

It might be difficult for me or you to figure it out, but that's why we have experts. And they have noticed a rise in CO2 by 40%.

And wth that statement of idiocy, you have once again undermined the case of the denialists. Thanks.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1089 days ago)

Your mind really is a closed shop, isn't it Walter. The lights are on but no one is home. Please consider the question, which after all is merely a statement of the fundamental question which should be asked of all hypothesis, (as required by the scientific method) applied to the agw hypothesis

Your mind really is a closed shop, isn't it Walter. The lights are on but no one is home. Please consider the question, which after all is merely a statement of the fundamental question which should be asked of all hypothesis, (as required by the scientific method) applied to the agw hypothesis

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(1089 days ago)

OK, try this thought experiment. If we removed the 40% CO2 in the atmosphere that we have added, would the climate change?

Wrong. There's a gazillion tons of research on the effect of CO2 on the climate. Look it up and have another go.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1088 days ago)

Well i've have noted there's a lot of computer generated speculation,and goodness me a lot of articles written by idiots pointing to weather saying "we caused that", not to mention a whole army of retarded sociologists and other intellectually challenged pseudoscientists producing moronic junk papers along the line of " I know everythink, therefore everbody who doesn't believe what I believe must be idiots", but not much in the way of real testable and therefore falsifiable science. Maybe walter. its your obvious inability to understand what consitutes real science, that so hampers your critical thinking

Well i've have noted there's a lot of computer generated speculation,and goodness me a lot of articles written by idiots pointing to weather saying "we caused that", not to mention a whole army of retarded sociologists and other intellectually challenged pseudoscientists producing moronic junk papers along the line of " I know everythink, therefore everbody who doesn't believe what I believe must be idiots", but not much in the way of real testable and therefore falsifiable science. Maybe walter. its your obvious inability to understand what consitutes real science, that so hampers your critical thinking

As I said walter, the stuff you're fed is just fluffy opinion pieces, whereas I take the trouble to actually find the science.Of course having a real hard science degree (physics) aids in this endeavour as it has trained me to SEEK AND ASK THE RIGHT SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS, something that you are obviously so ill equipped to do, Do you understand now why I and other scientifically educated people keep on going on and on and on about the null hypothesis, and why you keep on dodging the question.The truth is Walter, you keep on asking the same ill defined question which fits your preconceived opinion, and consequently you will never be able to find the a properly defined answer, and will simply go round and round in circles in a deluded state, as so many other people have noted.

As I said walter, the stuff you're fed is just fluffy opinion pieces, whereas I take the trouble to actually find the science.Of course having a real hard science degree (physics) aids in this endeavour as it has trained me to SEEK AND ASK THE RIGHT SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS, something that you are obviously so ill equipped to do, Do you understand now why I and other scientifically educated people keep on going on and on and on about the null hypothesis, and why you keep on dodging the question.The truth is Walter, you keep on asking the same ill defined question which fits your preconceived opinion, and consequently you will never be able to find the a properly defined answer, and will simply go round and round in circles in a deluded state, as so many other people have noted.

Ther you go again Walter, every decent scientists knows the onus is on the proposers of an hypothesis to show that a conjecture is justified, yet you insist on reversing the scientific method. See what I mean about you being mentally ill equipped to frame a correct question according to the scientific method,.

Ther you go again Walter, every decent scientists knows the onus is on the proposers of an hypothesis to show that a conjecture is justified, yet you insist on reversing the scientific method. See what I mean about you being mentally ill equipped to frame a correct question according to the scientific method,.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(1088 days ago)

You seem to be confused about the scientific method. Perhaps not too surprising, considering your fake science degree ;-) 1) You define a hypothesis 2) You try to disprove the hypothesis

The hypothesis that human emmision of greenhourse gas, especially CO_2, causes a rising average temperature on Earth, has been put forward. It is a reasonable hypothesis, since we know the absorption spectrum of CO_2 makes it catch infraread radiation and we know that humans have indeed sent out quite a lot of CO_2. Further more we have been unable to put forward any better hypothesis as to why the temperature is slowly increasing, as it is. Many have been attempted, but all have hit major stumbling blocks which have shown that they cannot provide a better explanation to the observed reality than AGW can.

You obviously dislike that hypothesis, so you should be quite eager to jump in on step 2 and disprove it..?

That, my uneducated friend, is the scientific method. Exactly what Walter asked you to do.

And please spare us your boasting of a degree. It is quite obvious that it is either fake or you are speaking against better knowledge, when you say what you do in this commentary.

You seem to be confused about the scientific method. Perhaps not too surprising, considering your fake science degree ;-) 1) You define a hypothesis 2) You try to disprove the hypothesis

The hypothesis that human emmision of greenhourse gas, especially CO_2, causes a rising average temperature on Earth, has been put forward. It is a reasonable hypothesis, since we know the absorption spectrum of CO_2 makes it catch infraread radiation and we know that humans have indeed sent out quite a lot of CO_2. Further more we have been unable to put forward any better hypothesis as to why the temperature is slowly increasing, as it is. Many have been attempted, but all have hit major stumbling blocks which have shown that they cannot provide a better explanation to the observed reality than AGW can.

You obviously dislike that hypothesis, so you should be quite eager to jump in on step 2 and disprove it..?

That, my uneducated friend, is the scientific method. Exactly what Walter asked you to do.

And please spare us your boasting of a degree. It is quite obvious that it is either fake or you are speaking against better knowledge, when you say what you do in this commentary.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1088 days ago)

I'm confused ??????HA HA HA HA HA HA HA , 2) Try and disprove the hypothesis . The first part of step 2) is 2a) DEFINE THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AGAINST WHICH TO TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS. Nice of you to step in "guest", but alas for you, complete fail upon your part to not follow the conversation and realise that is the question I'm asking Walter to define. You see a hypothesis which cant make a fprediciton which is falsifiable, (although the 1) pause, 2) failure to find a atmospheric hot spot, 3) failed numerous attempts at trying to claim increased extreme weather ad nasium (no statistical evidence according to the AR5 science report), as PREDICTED by climate scientist/activists), doesn't seem to count. is defined as pseudoscience according to Karl Popper. Physics degree you see,

I'm confused ??????HA HA HA HA HA HA HA , 2) Try and disprove the hypothesis . The first part of step 2) is 2a) DEFINE THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AGAINST WHICH TO TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS. Nice of you to step in "guest", but alas for you, complete fail upon your part to not follow the conversation and realise that is the question I'm asking Walter to define. You see a hypothesis which cant make a fprediciton which is falsifiable, (although the 1) pause, 2) failure to find a atmospheric hot spot, 3) failed numerous attempts at trying to claim increased extreme weather ad nasium (no statistical evidence according to the AR5 science report), as PREDICTED by climate scientist/activists), doesn't seem to count. is defined as pseudoscience according to Karl Popper. Physics degree you see,

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(1088 days ago)

I am impressed. In that last post you almost sounded as if you knew what you were talking about. The claim that AGW is not falsifiable is often brought forward by people, such as yourself, with little understanding of the actual theory. That is fair enough, since it would seem that there is no single concrete observation which would disprove AGW in one fell swoop. Seems to support the argument that it is all a religion. Except, that view is really not correct.

I found this text which should be easily enough understandable without any special insight into science, so you should consider reading the examples. LINK

The interesting thing is that while you say AGW is not falsifiable, you, in your very first post, try to do it anyway. You put forward the old, rather incorrect, statement that temperatur has not been rising since 1998. When you are then informed how silly it is to draw any kind of trend line by cherrypicking two values, both being extremes, you rave on about your hands on experience... while at the same time making it rather obvious that you have nothing _but_ "hands on" experience, and, should I venture a guess, in a business rather far separated from science.

This should not really reflect badly on you. If someone makes strange claims and back up their claims by models and equations, which you do not understand, then why should you beleive them? If you cannot follow the argument, then it all boils down to trust. Alternatively, if you care deeply about the subject at hand, you could try to educate yourself, so you might better understand the arguments.

Perhaps the next time someone tries to, in simple words, explain how to derive trends from noisy data, you should consider what they say, and if you disagre, then ask follow up questions.

I am impressed. In that last post you almost sounded as if you knew what you were talking about. The claim that AGW is not falsifiable is often brought forward by people, such as yourself, with little understanding of the actual theory. That is fair enough, since it would seem that there is no single concrete observation which would disprove AGW in one fell swoop. Seems to support the argument that it is all a religion. Except, that view is really not correct.

I found this text which should be easily enough understandable without any special insight into science, so you should consider reading the examples. LINK

The interesting thing is that while you say AGW is not falsifiable, you, in your very first post, try to do it anyway. You put forward the old, rather incorrect, statement that temperatur has not been rising since 1998. When you are then informed how silly it is to draw any kind of trend line by cherrypicking two values, both being extremes, you rave on about your hands on experience... while at the same time making it rather obvious that you have nothing _but_ "hands on" experience, and, should I venture a guess, in a business rather far separated from science.

This should not really reflect badly on you. If someone makes strange claims and back up their claims by models and equations, which you do not understand, then why should you beleive them? If you cannot follow the argument, then it all boils down to trust. Alternatively, if you care deeply about the subject at hand, you could try to educate yourself, so you might better understand the arguments.

Perhaps the next time someone tries to, in simple words, explain how to derive trends from noisy data, you should consider what they say, and if you disagre, then ask follow up questions.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1088 days ago)

So you have a link to a puff piece thats looks like it was written by a sociologist, from victor venema's site. Is that the best you can do ? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA BTW, if you look at the comments look at heather1234 comment, another scientifically minded person who understands that random handwaving and pointing at clouds and stating Its twue Its twue, doesn't.actually count as science. Btw the piece actually mentions the search for the Higgs boson, maybe you should find out how they applied the scientific method to the problem. I will give you a clue .... BY DEFINING AND TESTING AGAINST THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AND PROVING IT WRONG IE A STASTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESULT TO A CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF 7 SIGMA .You see thats how you do real science.Btw do the climate models count as a prediction cause they are failing miserably,

So you have a link to a puff piece thats looks like it was written by a sociologist, from victor venema's site. Is that the best you can do ? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA BTW, if you look at the comments look at heather1234 comment, another scientifically minded person who understands that random handwaving and pointing at clouds and stating Its twue Its twue, doesn't.actually count as science. Btw the piece actually mentions the search for the Higgs boson, maybe you should find out how they applied the scientific method to the problem. I will give you a clue .... BY DEFINING AND TESTING AGAINST THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AND PROVING IT WRONG IE A STASTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESULT TO A CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF 7 SIGMA .You see thats how you do real science.Btw do the climate models count as a prediction cause they are failing miserably,

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(1088 days ago)

You are funny.... well... no, not really.

It becomes more and more apparent that you are trying to sound educated by using "big words", but your failure to put them in a proper context makes your attempts rather silly looking.

7 sigma, or for others reading this, 7 standard deviations of a normal distributed value, is a rather extreme confidence requirement. Again, I suggest you read up on the subject.

Again, in the hope you might actually listen, the scientific method is to form a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. There may be multiple simultaneous different hypothesis, which have all not been disproven. The more attempts, at disproving a hyposthesis, it can withstand the stronger it stands, but it is a perfectly valid hypothesis even if it has not been strongly challenged. Then it is just not yet a hypothesis which you can invest much trust in. In estimating the probability, that it is the explaining hypothesis, as opposed to just being one of multiple possible explanations, you will have to hold it against a null hypothesis, yes.

Again, a simple example, which should help explain this for you, so you can perhaps do more than repeat isolated sentences from others: If you flip a coin and it lands heads up 1 time. It doesnt give much confidence in the hypothesis that the coin is not fair. The null hypothesis here being that it is just random coincidence. If you do it ten times and it lands heads up every time, then the null hypothesis, that its just randomly landing like that, is very unlikely. That should only happen one in 1024 times, so the null hypothesis has a probability of 0.097%, meaning the hypothesis itself has a confidence of 99.903% Commonly 3 standard deviations is considered a good confidence interval for most cases, and that is 99.8% So, here we see that to properly test the hypothesis, to within a high confidence interval, the coin has to be thrown 10 times, and if it lands same side up every time, you have a "confirmed" hypothesis. It can of course still be wrong... it is just not very likely.

As it currently stands, those involved in climate science, which I am not personally, have attempted rather thoroughly to disprove AGW, and have as of yet failed to do so. It may be that it is a false hypothesis, but right here and now, we have none which better explains all the observations. I am not aware of any specific confidence interval being calculated yet for the hypothesis in its entirety. It seems unlikely that it can be done for such a complicated case, but it is generally felt that the confidence is very high by now.

Other hypothesis pop up all the time, but rarely do they survive long, since they generally explain only a few observations, and do not account for the whole picture. AGW is simply the current best.

So, as closing words, however much fun this has been... it would serve you better to keep the following in mind

1) do not boast a fake degree and then show lack of understanding of the basic concepts. 2) when people take the time to respond to specific claims, that you make, be a good boy and try to answer their response rather than just making up new absurd claims. 3) be a bit more polite when communicating. Those, with opposing views to your own, have no desire to cheat anyone or do the world or you any harm. 4) be a little more respectfull to the people who actually understand the methods involved and try to learn rather than ridicule 5) relax on the caps lock ;-) 6) read up on the actual math and physics if this is a topic you care about. Either you will end up much more capable of debating how silly AGW is, or you might have a change of mind, and who do not want to be proven wrong, if that is indeed what they are?

It becomes more and more apparent that you are trying to sound educated by using "big words", but your failure to put them in a proper context makes your attempts rather silly looking.

7 sigma, or for others reading this, 7 standard deviations of a normal distributed value, is a rather extreme confidence requirement. Again, I suggest you read up on the subject.

Again, in the hope you might actually listen, the scientific method is to form a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. There may be multiple simultaneous different hypothesis, which have all not been disproven. The more attempts, at disproving a hyposthesis, it can withstand the stronger it stands, but it is a perfectly valid hypothesis even if it has not been strongly challenged. Then it is just not yet a hypothesis which you can invest much trust in. In estimating the probability, that it is the explaining hypothesis, as opposed to just being one of multiple possible explanations, you will have to hold it against a null hypothesis, yes.

Again, a simple example, which should help explain this for you, so you can perhaps do more than repeat isolated sentences from others: If you flip a coin and it lands heads up 1 time. It doesnt give much confidence in the hypothesis that the coin is not fair. The null hypothesis here being that it is just random coincidence. If you do it ten times and it lands heads up every time, then the null hypothesis, that its just randomly landing like that, is very unlikely. That should only happen one in 1024 times, so the null hypothesis has a probability of 0.097%, meaning the hypothesis itself has a confidence of 99.903% Commonly 3 standard deviations is considered a good confidence interval for most cases, and that is 99.8% So, here we see that to properly test the hypothesis, to within a high confidence interval, the coin has to be thrown 10 times, and if it lands same side up every time, you have a "confirmed" hypothesis. It can of course still be wrong... it is just not very likely.

As it currently stands, those involved in climate science, which I am not personally, have attempted rather thoroughly to disprove AGW, and have as of yet failed to do so. It may be that it is a false hypothesis, but right here and now, we have none which better explains all the observations. I am not aware of any specific confidence interval being calculated yet for the hypothesis in its entirety. It seems unlikely that it can be done for such a complicated case, but it is generally felt that the confidence is very high by now.

Other hypothesis pop up all the time, but rarely do they survive long, since they generally explain only a few observations, and do not account for the whole picture. AGW is simply the current best.

So, as closing words, however much fun this has been... it would serve you better to keep the following in mind

1) do not boast a fake degree and then show lack of understanding of the basic concepts. 2) when people take the time to respond to specific claims, that you make, be a good boy and try to answer their response rather than just making up new absurd claims. 3) be a bit more polite when communicating. Those, with opposing views to your own, have no desire to cheat anyone or do the world or you any harm. 4) be a little more respectfull to the people who actually understand the methods involved and try to learn rather than ridicule 5) relax on the caps lock ;-) 6) read up on the actual math and physics if this is a topic you care about. Either you will end up much more capable of debating how silly AGW is, or you might have a change of mind, and who do not want to be proven wrong, if that is indeed what they are?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1088 days ago)

How backward does someone have to be,to try and put a physicist down on the statistical requirements that the scientists at cern specify for validity in detecting a new particle in elementary particle physics ? (technically they detected an anomaly against the null hypothesis consistant with the higgs boson, but thats another story, it will require you to understand the scientific method and we've already been down that road) . Goodness me you're so dumb, you must be a close relative of Walter., After that nonsense are your part I not even going bother to read the rest, because its obvious you know zilch. are. btw 5 sigma, (they got it to 7)

How backward does someone have to be,to try and put a physicist down on the statistical requirements that the scientists at cern specify for validity in detecting a new particle in elementary particle physics ? (technically they detected an anomaly against the null hypothesis consistant with the higgs boson, but thats another story, it will require you to understand the scientific method and we've already been down that road) . Goodness me you're so dumb, you must be a close relative of Walter., After that nonsense are your part I not even going bother to read the rest, because its obvious you know zilch. are. btw 5 sigma, (they got it to 7)

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
SAT-A-NA(1088 days ago)

Jesus Fu*king Christ!

originalmad, stop trolling the poor souls. It's not even funny anymore, you sound like a fu*king broken record... on every climate change post, you go on and spout the same old " lizard people ipcc conspiracy crap " withe the "climate scientsits are dumb but not me, originalmad! i'm smart, yeah, i know better! "

We're fu*king tired of it already! even WalterEgo is starting to get tired of your trolling.

Fu*king reinvent your troll self, mate. You're a one trick pony, and your starting to become irrelevant. (at least you're not as dumb as that 1234fuk cu*t, but that's nothing to be proud about since a monkey is also smartar than IT).

@nameless guest : are you fu*king stupid or something? why are you feeding the trolls? at least get your facts from here from now on: LINK

originalmad, stop trolling the poor souls. It's not even funny anymore, you sound like a fu*king broken record... on every climate change post, you go on and spout the same old " lizard people ipcc conspiracy crap " withe the "climate scientsits are dumb but not me, originalmad! i'm smart, yeah, i know better! "

We're fu*king tired of it already! even WalterEgo is starting to get tired of your trolling.

Fu*king reinvent your troll self, mate. You're a one trick pony, and your starting to become irrelevant. (at least you're not as dumb as that 1234fuk cu*t, but that's nothing to be proud about since a monkey is also smartar than IT).

@nameless guest : are you fu*king stupid or something? why are you feeding the trolls? at least get your facts from here from now on: LINK

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1088 days ago)

On the contrary, i haven't bothered for a quite a while,afterall agw is a dying meme, and I'm sure Walter's dogmatic faith bores everybody else. sorry for trying to get Walter to approach climate science from a more scientific point of view and not just instantly accepting of every computer projection and media outlet article as instant verified truth.

On the contrary, i haven't bothered for a quite a while,afterall agw is a dying meme, and I'm sure Walter's dogmatic faith bores everybody else. sorry for trying to get Walter to approach climate science from a more scientific point of view and not just instantly accepting of every computer projection and media outlet article as instant verified truth.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(1088 days ago)

No, I am not stupid or something. I am essentially feeding the trolls in order to let the villagers see that there are indeed trolls in these woods, and that they have better be carefull.

If ignorant trolls are the only ones giving a comment to videos like this, some people, who know no better, may be lured off the path and into the woods, where they will be eaten.

Anyone reading here, should be able to see that imposter for what he really is by now.

You must be new on BoreMe. Walter has been battling originalmad (and others) for years over climate change. And it will probably continue until one of them drowns as sea levels rise.

If you stick around, don't miss the next banking video. Watch out for originalbanker, better known as cengland0. He's smarter than originalmad, but not by much.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1088 days ago)

problem was, that you are completely ignorant yourself, so calling me ignorant is sheer stupidity upon your part, and to show how thick and ignorant you really are I suggest you go away and look up the difference between a NULL hypothesis and a NIL hypothesis and apply it to your own rambling rubbish on coin throwing. Btw my degree is in physics,i suspect given your simplistic rubbish that your masters is in wikipedia, in which case you should learn to read a bit closer, for goodness sake look up Karl Popper .

problem was, that you are completely ignorant yourself, so calling me ignorant is sheer stupidity upon your part, and to show how thick and ignorant you really are I suggest you go away and look up the difference between a NULL hypothesis and a NIL hypothesis and apply it to your own rambling rubbish on coin throwing. Btw my degree is in physics,i suspect given your simplistic rubbish that your masters is in wikipedia, in which case you should learn to read a bit closer, for goodness sake look up Karl Popper .

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(1087 days ago)

You are the one who mentioned the null hypothesis. I gave an example of what it is, since you obviously do not know. Null hypothesis being the hypothesis that there is no relationship between a series of observations.

Now, go and educate yourself on the topic before talking here again, please.

I wonder what your goal truely is. Troll, you have been called, but that implies that your only purpose is to fire a discussion, which I somehow doubt. It seems that you really feel AGW is rubbish, but then I wonder why you keep avoiding responding to anything concrete, and instead opt to always just insult and use terms, which are obviously foregin to you. Assume for once that we, who trust the validity of AGW, are not all rambling isiots or evil ones trying to take something from you. Then try to have a sane discussion on the topic. The prime rule there being that if you make a statement and I reject it with something concrete, then you either conceed that you were wrong, or you put forth a counter argument.

You are the one who mentioned the null hypothesis. I gave an example of what it is, since you obviously do not know. Null hypothesis being the hypothesis that there is no relationship between a series of observations.

Now, go and educate yourself on the topic before talking here again, please.

I wonder what your goal truely is. Troll, you have been called, but that implies that your only purpose is to fire a discussion, which I somehow doubt. It seems that you really feel AGW is rubbish, but then I wonder why you keep avoiding responding to anything concrete, and instead opt to always just insult and use terms, which are obviously foregin to you. Assume for once that we, who trust the validity of AGW, are not all rambling isiots or evil ones trying to take something from you. Then try to have a sane discussion on the topic. The prime rule there being that if you make a statement and I reject it with something concrete, then you either conceed that you were wrong, or you put forth a counter argument.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1087 days ago)

Actually you didn't, that coin throwing example was just pure nonsense. really suggest you go and read the wiki page a bit more closely, and for goodness sake buy a book on the subject..btw I did imply how the null hypothesis works,when I mentioned the higgs boson statistical result , but hey if you want to take credit for knowing something after I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY, thats your problem, but if you want to suggest that i didn't know it, then you're dumb. On the subject of ahem "concrete fact" you do realize that all the arguments presented by you and others against the null hypothesis all smack of sophistry ( especially that hilarious puff piece link), and thats what climate alarmism has been reduced to, circular reasoning and sophistry to justify its position. Alas for you, you're too stupid and too uneducated to realise that, Are you sure you're not related to Walter ?

Actually you didn't, that coin throwing example was just pure nonsense. really suggest you go and read the wiki page a bit more closely, and for goodness sake buy a book on the subject..btw I did imply how the null hypothesis works,when I mentioned the higgs boson statistical result , but hey if you want to take credit for knowing something after I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY, thats your problem, but if you want to suggest that i didn't know it, then you're dumb. On the subject of ahem "concrete fact" you do realize that all the arguments presented by you and others against the null hypothesis all smack of sophistry ( especially that hilarious puff piece link), and thats what climate alarmism has been reduced to, circular reasoning and sophistry to justify its position. Alas for you, you're too stupid and too uneducated to realise that, Are you sure you're not related to Walter ?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(1088 days ago)

Rather expected that reaction :-)

Its hard for you to say anything concrete in response, when you do not really understand the topic. You have yet to show the slighest bit of reaction to any of the factual things others have mentioned here. The most concrete you have written is your unconnected ramblings about CERN. Yes, they use 5 standard deviations, sigma 5, as the lower bar for detection.... and the relevance to the topic at hand is....what exactly?

I wrote for anyone else who reads here, so time is not wasted. If you want to undo the picture, which is currently painted of you and your views, then you have to start being a bit less vague. Pressently you have only managed to throw out a few disconnected terms, with no real connection to anything.

However, I feel my work is done. Guess Walter got tired of this in the end, and who can blame him?

Since you have apparently given up, now that you got a little opposition, and you can see that the longer we go on, the more evident it is that you have nu actual knowledge of the subject at hand, I will leave this thread as well. Feel free to have the last word.

Its hard for you to say anything concrete in response, when you do not really understand the topic. You have yet to show the slighest bit of reaction to any of the factual things others have mentioned here. The most concrete you have written is your unconnected ramblings about CERN. Yes, they use 5 standard deviations, sigma 5, as the lower bar for detection.... and the relevance to the topic at hand is....what exactly?

I wrote for anyone else who reads here, so time is not wasted. If you want to undo the picture, which is currently painted of you and your views, then you have to start being a bit less vague. Pressently you have only managed to throw out a few disconnected terms, with no real connection to anything.

However, I feel my work is done. Guess Walter got tired of this in the end, and who can blame him?

Since you have apparently given up, now that you got a little opposition, and you can see that the longer we go on, the more evident it is that you have nu actual knowledge of the subject at hand, I will leave this thread as well. Feel free to have the last word.

You didn't answer the question. I'll have another go: If AGW is wrong, you'd expect oodles of evidence that contradict it. Name just one.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(1088 days ago)

It is interesting how you 1) conduct yourself at the level of an angry school boy 2) claim to pave a physics degree and being a scientist while at the same time distancing you from "the scientists" with phrasing such as "they are having a good deal of trouble ". "They" being "The scientists" and "All of them" even. 3) belittle mathematical modelling without, apparently, understanding how this is the exact tool which you are not understanding, which in turn causes you to doubt the conclusions, within known and well defined error bounds. Decide, please. Do you understand the tool well enough to see the errors, or is it a foregin topic to you, which you, as a real hands on scientist (?) know to be useless?

It is interesting how you 1) conduct yourself at the level of an angry school boy 2) claim to pave a physics degree and being a scientist while at the same time distancing you from "the scientists" with phrasing such as "they are having a good deal of trouble ". "They" being "The scientists" and "All of them" even. 3) belittle mathematical modelling without, apparently, understanding how this is the exact tool which you are not understanding, which in turn causes you to doubt the conclusions, within known and well defined error bounds. Decide, please. Do you understand the tool well enough to see the errors, or is it a foregin topic to you, which you, as a real hands on scientist (?) know to be useless?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1086 days ago)

I only belitle mathematical modelling because its practioners (especially in climate science) do tend to seem to be so in love with their own creation ( pygmalion complex perhaps ) that they think that reality must somehow be wrong if it disagrees with it I have done a little myself, mostly in error analysis oddly enough, fair time ago though and because the crunching power and memory was limited , we really had to think about what we are doing and is it worth the effort. But and your right when i distance myself from the great number of incompetent charletons that have clambered on to the gravy train of climate science

I only belitle mathematical modelling because its practioners (especially in climate science) do tend to seem to be so in love with their own creation ( pygmalion complex perhaps ) that they think that reality must somehow be wrong if it disagrees with it I have done a little myself, mostly in error analysis oddly enough, fair time ago though and because the crunching power and memory was limited , we really had to think about what we are doing and is it worth the effort. But and your right when i distance myself from the great number of incompetent charletons that have clambered on to the gravy train of climate science

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(1086 days ago)

You still haven't managed to come up with one piece of evidence that contradicts AGW.

You still haven't managed to come up with one piece of evidence that contradicts AGW.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1086 days ago)

Dear me Walter, stil with the dogmatic statements, the utter failure of all the models to model temperature is a good indicator that the conjecture doesn't translate into the real world, remember the onus is on the the proposers of a conjecture to verify it, and they have failed miserably.

Dear me Walter, stil with the dogmatic statements, the utter failure of all the models to model temperature is a good indicator that the conjecture doesn't translate into the real world, remember the onus is on the the proposers of a conjecture to verify it, and they have failed miserably.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(1086 days ago)

Whether or not the models are accurate does not contradict or prove AGW. They are just models.

Whether or not the models are accurate does not contradict or prove AGW. They are just models.

Why don't you look for an alternative explanation for global warming?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1085 days ago)

Well to be honest, Walter,maybe the answer to your question can be be found in the efforts of the proposers of cagw to minimise the 1940's blip, the Mwp, amd other warm periods in the holocence. trying desperatly to change the historical data to fit their view of the world speaks volumes..

Well to be honest, Walter,maybe the answer to your question can be be found in the efforts of the proposers of cagw to minimise the 1940's blip, the Mwp, amd other warm periods in the holocence. trying desperatly to change the historical data to fit their view of the world speaks volumes..

Oh dear Walter, obviously just a little bit too subtle for you, ah well.Btw If it doesn't matter if the models are accurate or not then what do the cagw cultists spend so much time scweaming at the output ?.

Oh dear Walter, obviously just a little bit too subtle for you, ah well.Btw If it doesn't matter if the models are accurate or not then what do the cagw cultists spend so much time scweaming at the output ?.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Argle(1091 days ago)

The stupid thng here is that many scientifically minded people (including me) have some trouble with the absolute minded -- people who have now made a religion of climate change -- because it seems that what they have is a vision, not hard reality. When it comes to temperatures, the lines is "it's getting hotter! hotter! HOTTER! OMG we're melting. .... um disregard the 15 year statistics of no temperature change. Now, ignore the inconsistencies, let's make absolute political policy from it. But this isn't politics, it's science. You, in the back, shut the f*** up about common sense."

The stupid thng here is that many scientifically minded people (including me) have some trouble with the absolute minded -- people who have now made a religion of climate change -- because it seems that what they have is a vision, not hard reality. When it comes to temperatures, the lines is "it's getting hotter! hotter! HOTTER! OMG we're melting. .... um disregard the 15 year statistics of no temperature change. Now, ignore the inconsistencies, let's make absolute political policy from it. But this isn't politics, it's science. You, in the back, shut the f*** up about common sense."

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
JoeTaicoon(1091 days ago)

As to the constant temperature... *sigh* Very simplistic example: Consider this sample set

1,2,3,4,7,6,7,

One may point out that if you fit a linear function to this data, you see a tendensy of an increase of one every step, and best estimate is a value of 8 the next time. That is what is done in climate science. You may alternatively say that there has been no increase the last three steps, by looking at the two instances of a value 7. Essentially ignoring all data except the previous highest and the latest. That is what some other non climate science people feel is right.

Which view do you feel is based on the more solid foundation?

One is making the best function fit on the available data and the other is cherry picking the two sample points which give the desired result. You could alternatively have looked at the samples 7,6 and claimed that the temperature was in fact dropping now.

As to the constant temperature... *sigh* Very simplistic example: Consider this sample set

1,2,3,4,7,6,7,

One may point out that if you fit a linear function to this data, you see a tendensy of an increase of one every step, and best estimate is a value of 8 the next time. That is what is done in climate science. You may alternatively say that there has been no increase the last three steps, by looking at the two instances of a value 7. Essentially ignoring all data except the previous highest and the latest. That is what some other non climate science people feel is right.

Which view do you feel is based on the more solid foundation?

One is making the best function fit on the available data and the other is cherry picking the two sample points which give the desired result. You could alternatively have looked at the samples 7,6 and claimed that the temperature was in fact dropping now.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1091 days ago)

"sigh* Yet another idiot who doesn't understand the scientific method with regards to data handling

"sigh* Yet another idiot who doesn't understand the scientific method with regards to data handling

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
JoeTaicoon(1090 days ago)

Are you serious? I do have a masters in computer science and physics (mathematical modelling) and a bachelor degree in mathematics, so I do probably understand these things rather well.

This is also why it sadens me when a great number of people first don't understand the methods used and the uncertainty bounds defined for the methods, and secondly yell "fake". Its rather simple. Either learn the background yourself or trust those who did learn it. There is really no sense in not understanding while simultaneously claiming the right to judge.

Are you serious? I do have a masters in computer science and physics (mathematical modelling) and a bachelor degree in mathematics, so I do probably understand these things rather well.

This is also why it sadens me when a great number of people first don't understand the methods used and the uncertainty bounds defined for the methods, and secondly yell "fake". Its rather simple. Either learn the background yourself or trust those who did learn it. There is really no sense in not understanding while simultaneously claiming the right to judge.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1090 days ago)

You know i would take you more seriously if you had a degree in physics or mathematics and then moved on to mathematical modelling but i guess your just a computer geek playing with "perfect"data in your little delusional sanatised world without a thought on the real world its collected in i just so happen to have a (real) degree in physics , which i guess gazumps a mere computing degree, and gives me a pretty good idea of the absurdity of so much of this computer generated extrapolation.from sparse and flawed data,.

You know i would take you more seriously if you had a degree in physics or mathematics and then moved on to mathematical modelling but i guess your just a computer geek playing with "perfect"data in your little delusional sanatised world without a thought on the real world its collected in i just so happen to have a (real) degree in physics , which i guess gazumps a mere computing degree, and gives me a pretty good idea of the absurdity of so much of this computer generated extrapolation.from sparse and flawed data,.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1090 days ago)

Ah I see you did mention a bachelors in maths, so just a geek then with no real world experience, and yes my physics degree does gazump that

Ah I see you did mention a bachelors in maths, so just a geek then with no real world experience, and yes my physics degree does gazump that

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
JoeTaicoon(1090 days ago)

Judging by the way you conduct yourself, I wonder what kind of degree you are truly having. Seldom have I met anyone else in the scientific community, who behaved like you do, regardless of the difference of opinion.

As to your assumptions about perfect data... do you even understand what I mean when I say "mathematical modelling"? It is exactly about making sense of non perfect data.

I doubt any of this is making a dent in your opinions which seem to be made of polished steel. I opted to respond anyway, for anyone else who might read this. I will however not waste more time on you, since you do not seem to seek any kind of rational communication, but rather desire to sling insults at opposing views.

Judging by the way you conduct yourself, I wonder what kind of degree you are truly having. Seldom have I met anyone else in the scientific community, who behaved like you do, regardless of the difference of opinion.

As to your assumptions about perfect data... do you even understand what I mean when I say "mathematical modelling"? It is exactly about making sense of non perfect data.

I doubt any of this is making a dent in your opinions which seem to be made of polished steel. I opted to respond anyway, for anyone else who might read this. I will however not waste more time on you, since you do not seem to seek any kind of rational communication, but rather desire to sling insults at opposing views.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
originalmad(1090 days ago)

listen computer geek boy, physics degree means we have had to do real experiments with real flawed instruments, which break down, need constant calibrating, or in one case (radiation detector), whole batch simply flawed straight out of the box (it gave an output but not one that made any sense ). You probably sit behind your computer screen modelling using clean looking computer sanitised input data from remote sensing devices that you have no idea whats happened to it in the real world, other than it gives an output. As I said *sigh* you wont understand the scientific method as regards data handling. To you its only an abstract concept, where us real scientists know you cant make a silk purse out of pigs ear data. Understand now.

listen computer geek boy, physics degree means we have had to do real experiments with real flawed instruments, which break down, need constant calibrating, or in one case (radiation detector), whole batch simply flawed straight out of the box (it gave an output but not one that made any sense ). You probably sit behind your computer screen modelling using clean looking computer sanitised input data from remote sensing devices that you have no idea whats happened to it in the real world, other than it gives an output. As I said *sigh* you wont understand the scientific method as regards data handling. To you its only an abstract concept, where us real scientists know you cant make a silk purse out of pigs ear data. Understand now.

Sorry, just stating simple facts as regards data handling isn't actually trolling Sat. most of the "sceptics" actually tend to very good statisticians and are quick to spot cherry picking and such like which "climate science" gets up to. Climate science certainly doesn't have high standards regarding presenting the caveats in their findings, and quite frequently claim much higher certainty than the normally sparse data can support, which has to lead to quite ludicrous failed public predictions . You could say that "climate science tm" as epitomised by the hockey team and the IPCC has lost the trust of real scientists and the general public, and once its gone its hard to regain. Given that, its only natural that the general public have learned to treat each new pronouncement of doom with a large Yawn. Its not my fault that the lib left and the media cant see that, and somehow think that somehow more pr inspired scweaming headlines (weather bombs ???? for example) and name calling is somehow going to get the message across. people have heard it all before, and noted the large fails.

Sorry, just stating simple facts as regards data handling isn't actually trolling Sat. most of the "sceptics" actually tend to very good statisticians and are quick to spot cherry picking and such like which "climate science" gets up to. Climate science certainly doesn't have high standards regarding presenting the caveats in their findings, and quite frequently claim much higher certainty than the normally sparse data can support, which has to lead to quite ludicrous failed public predictions . You could say that "climate science tm" as epitomised by the hockey team and the IPCC has lost the trust of real scientists and the general public, and once its gone its hard to regain. Given that, its only natural that the general public have learned to treat each new pronouncement of doom with a large Yawn. Its not my fault that the lib left and the media cant see that, and somehow think that somehow more pr inspired scweaming headlines (weather bombs ???? for example) and name calling is somehow going to get the message across. people have heard it all before, and noted the large fails.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
SAT-A-NA(1090 days ago)

"" You could say that "climate science tm" as epitomised by the hockey team and the IPCC has lost the trust of real scientists and the general public, and once its gone its hard to regain""